Would there be value in implementing wastage?

[pat.casey]

By that I mean a flat 1-2 SP per turn loss of any corps in contact with another corps? Perhaps if that's too aggressive (wastage was much higher in the west I believe), then only implement wastage if you're adjacent to at least level 2 trenches or some such and allow a mitigating factor for your own entrenchment level.

Reason I ask is that it seems like historically, there was usually a period of buildup prior to a major offensive. Everything from stockpiling shells, to sending bringing units to their full TOE, to increasing rations. Whereas right now, if you park some 24 STR A level corps outside Paris in 1914, they're still going to be there in 1917 as 24 STR A level corps barring your opponent deciding to actively shell you.

Seems like wastage would be a useful game mechanism to both simulate the gradual reduction of units in trench warfare and force the player to adopt more historical trench tactics e.g. lighter forces along the front to keep the line stable but minimize wastage, and heavy counterattack forces behind the lines, but outside of enemy artillery range.

[EUBanana]

I don't think its necessary because artillery barrages have the same effect.  I see corps melting away to nothing almost as a matter of course.  It might not quite be as historical (I don't actually stockpile shells per se, I just keep a certain portion of industry devoted to making them and fire them off every turn so its constant pain - so not quite as it was) but the end result, of corps melting away while in contact with the enemy, is the same.

The thing about havign lighter forces behind the lines, well, thats kinda simulated too in that you dont want to spoil your, say, 40 strength US division, by putting it inthe line where its going to get mauled by 21 focused guns or some such before it even attacks.

(Mind you the whole defence in depth thing was poorly understood until 1918)